Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

SwaggerHub vs webMethods.io comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

SwaggerHub
Ranking in API Management
14th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
13
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
webMethods.io
Ranking in API Management
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
94
Ranking in other categories
Business-to-Business Middleware (5th), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (3rd), Managed File Transfer (MFT) (11th), Cloud Data Integration (10th), Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the API Management category, the mindshare of SwaggerHub is 1.5%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of webMethods.io is 2.4%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
API Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
webMethods.io2.4%
SwaggerHub1.5%
Other96.1%
API Management
 

Featured Reviews

Manish Indupuri - PeerSpot reviewer
senior DevOps engineer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Has streamlined API documentation and integration workflows across cross-functional teams
Documenting SwaggerHub has a standard and consistent structure of API definitions, and it automatically generates interactive documentation which helps the developers to understand everything. There are certain areas where SwaggerHub can go beyond here as formatting options for documentation pages are restricted, and the import and export options of API collections are complex in SwaggerHub. It provides various collaboration tools where we can work and do it. The strong validation against the API maintains conformity and reduces errors. That part is very great in SwaggerHub. Overall, scalability and stability-wise, it varies high compared to the competitors, but there are still certain areas where competitors are providing various customizations. SwaggerHub can understand those aspects and implement them as well. The complex import and export of API calls and collaborations can be challenging in SwaggerHub. If they can make it easier for us, that would be great. Their performance is degraded if there is too much load on the API. The customization and doc formatting options for documentation pages are restricted in SwaggerHub. A few of my teammates have complained that they find the UI unintuitive where it requires multiple clicks for simple tasks. SwaggerHub is a great tool, but these limitations can be addressed to make things better and easier.
YM
Developer at a hospitality company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Offers strong integration capabilities and reliable features but needs pricing and scaling improvements
Many things are evolving with the AI buzz in the market. What I would like to see improved or enhanced in webMethods.io in the future is that since webMethods.io is already under IBM, I think IBM will introduce and integrate AI into it. Additionally, regarding what webMethods.io can improve is the license cost. Other cloud players are also providing the same kind of functionality, such as AWS and Azure. webMethods.io is being installed on-premises, but AWS is providing it directly in the cloud. When comparing the license cost and request per minute cost, webMethods.io needs to address that. There are many competitors in the market for this.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."
"One of the best features of SwaggerHub is how it allows me to create APIs and control the evolution of APIs within an organization."
"SwaggerHub is helping with team collaboration, as all the people now know the link, they just go there and get the information they need, and it is really a documentation tool for sharing documentation information about the API we support."
"You can click & play and add the notation in a human-readable form. Spotlight is also very good in the graphical design of APIs."
"SwaggerHub has significantly improved how my organization designs, documents, and manages APIs, centralizing API management so that all API definitions are stored in one location, which makes it easy for stakeholders, developers, QA, DevOps, and products to access the latest version."
"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."
"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."
"Most of the work in our organization can be more easily done using the tool."
"Best feature is Insight for monitoring, and as a debugging tool. It has saved us a lot of time during crisis situations."
"The most valuable feature of the webMethods Integration Server is the built-in monitoring, auditing, RETS, and SOAP services."
"The stability is good."
"I like the solution's policies, transformation, mediation, and routing features."
"What I like best about webMethods Integration Server is its portfolio of connectors."
"The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation."
"We have a reusable code that we can replicate for any new interfaces."
 

Cons

"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."
"Some areas of SwaggerHub that could be improved include the interface between the code editor and the visual editor, the integration with private APIs, which currently requires an upgraded account."
"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."
"The scalability aspect of SwaggerHub can be improved. It becomes a bit unreliable when the load is increased and isn't up to par with expectations for scalability."
"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."
"The customization and doc formatting options for documentation pages are restricted in SwaggerHub."
"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."
"At some point, we were missing some tagging of the APIs, and we could not do that."
"In terms of improvement, it would be better if it adapted quicker to open standards. It took a while for API specification before the last version was available. The spec of version two was rather quick."
"On the monitoring side of things, the UI for monitoring could be improved. It's a bit cumbersome to work with."
"Some things could be improved, especially how ActiveTransfer handles third-party file transfers. It would be nice to have a native file-watching mechanism for when you're scheduling jobs with a third-party scheduler. Currently, we are using an outside file watcher solution to check the files before the file transfer. It checks the location to see if the file is there. If the file is there, it will prepare it for transfer. If the file isn't available, it will send an email it can create a ticket send it now. We recommended adding this file watcher mechanism."
"It could be more user-friendly."
"Need to see more API portal features like monetizing APIs and private cloud readiness."
"Technical support is an area where they can improve."
"The solution should include REST API calls."
"This is a great solution and the vendor could improve the marketing of the solution to be able to reach more clients."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It has a yearly subscription, but I am not sure."
"The tool is cheap."
"I don’t have much idea about prices, but webMethods API Portal is not something cheaper."
"The product is expensive."
"This is not a cheap solution but, compared to other products such as those offered by IBM, the pricing is similar."
"The price is a little bit high, especially regarding their support."
"There is a license needed to use the webMethods Integration Server."
"It is an expensive tool. I rate the product price a nine out of ten, where ten means it is very expensive."
"The solution's development license is free for three to six months. We have to pay for other things."
"It's a good deal for the money that we pay."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which API Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Retailer
6%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise64
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with SwaggerHub?
In SwaggerHub, I appreciate that it is a powerful platform for API design and collaboration, but currently, the access control is somewhat limited. I would love to see enhanced permissions allowing...
What is your primary use case for SwaggerHub?
I have worked for Arden University, University of Sheffield, and Nanyang Technological University. For those institutions, I used Amazon AppStream for backend validations. When working for Prolific...
What advice do you have for others considering SwaggerHub?
Based on my limited experience with SwaggerHub, I can share a few practical recommendations for implementing it effectively. Before onboarding multiple teams, it's important to define naming conven...
What do you like most about Built.io Flow?
The tool helps us to streamline data integration. Its BPM is very strong and powerful. The solution helps us manage digital transformation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io is expensive. We have multiple components, and you need to pay for each of them.
What needs improvement with Built.io Flow?
webMethods.io needs to incorporate ChatGPT to enhance user experience. It can offer a customized user experience.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Built.io Flow, webMethods Integration Server, webMethods Trading Networks, webMethods ActiveTransfer, webMethods.io API
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sonic, Zuora, Woolworths, CrowdFlower
Cisco, Agralogics, Dreamforce, Cables & Sensors, Sacramento Kings
Find out what your peers are saying about SwaggerHub vs. webMethods.io and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,707 professionals have used our research since 2012.